Response to Atheist H.J. McCloskey (Article)
By Jake Kohl
H.J. McCloskey’s
article, On Being an Atheist, states that atheism is a more reasonable and
comfortable belief than that of Theism. That theism is a comfortless, spine-chilling
doctrine. McCloskey argues against the three theistic proofs;
cosmological argument, the teleological argument and the argument from design.
He points out the existence of evil in the world that God made.
McCloskey also pointed out that it is irrational to live by faith and that
faith is taking a reckless and irrational risk. McCloskey argued that the
cosmological argument was an argument from the existence of the world, as we
know it. He stated that believing in an uncaused first cause of the
universe is a problem because nothing about our universe forces us to that
conclusion. Many philosophers, from Plato to Aquinas, have argued that
regardless of whether the universe had a beginning moment or has always been in
existence that God is the necessary cause of the universe. Many argue
that everything in the universe is contingent and that if contingent things
exist; they require a necessary being as their ultimate cause. Therefore
this necessary being is God. I believe that every cause can be traced
back to a first cause: God.
McCloskey refers to the arguments as “proofs” and that they cannot definitively establish the case for God, which therefore, should be abandoned. In light of the comments made by Professor Jason Wesley Alvis of Liberty University, in the PointeCast presentation (Lesson 18), I would have to argue McCloskey’s position that they can’t definitively establish the case for God. First the Best Explanation Approach, used by scientist all the time, is one approach to the argument of McCloskey. This approach alone is sufficient in establishing a case for God. A second approach is called the Cumulative Case Approach where instead of one piece of evidence is used; we bring several pieces of evidence together, also called concurrence. This approach can bring a very strong case for establishing the existence of God. A final approach is the Minimalistic Concept of God, where we are not arguing every attribute of God, but for a personal, moral, intelligent creator of the universe.
McCloskey also claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being].” However, “to give information about reality, or “matters of fact,”’ a proposition must be synthetic and therefore must be empirically verifiable.” (Evans, & Manis, 2009) McCloskey’s statement is not synthetic which throws out this argument. The cause of the universe must be necessary and therefore uncaused because if there is not a first cause, then the whole universe would be unexplained. The universe didn’t just “be”. McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” My response is that nothing is formed out of nothing; there must have been a beginning somewhere. An example would be a piece of paper, which it would be impossible for a piece of paper to just appear. It would have to be made, or created. There must be a creator to create something out of nothing; otherwise it would not make sense.
McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” Looking at the term, indisputable in a philosophical view, we can see that indisputable means incontestable: not open to question; obviously true or impossible to doubt or dispute. In looking at indisputability and absolute proof, which he calls a “very conclusive objection”, I would have to agree based on a philosophical view. I would also call any genuine indisputable examples that McCloskey can raise regarding the non-existence of a creator the same, a very conclusive objection. However, when using the Cumulative Case Approach, it is very hard to deny the evidence of existence based on concurrence. It is reasonable based on the view or approach an individual takes.
While not necessarily “indisputable”, the Teleological Argument has strong evidences of a designer of the universe. “Complex machines, like watches and cameras, show the same kind of complex, beneficial order as do natural objects. We know that these machines are a result of intelligent design. And it is reasonable to conclude that objects in nature which are analogous manner.” (Evans, & Manis, 2009, p 79) McCloskey also implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. If I was to assume evolution as being true, I would have to agree that the premise is also true.” …God’s existence is possible, although it may not be known, is a proposition that could reasonably be accepted: the argument shows the “rational acceptability” of theism.” (Evans, & Manis, 2009, p 66) Therefore, it is rational to believe that a designer had to design the beginning. One does not just see a watch, vehicle, house or any object just appear out of nowhere; it has to have a creator in order for its existence.
McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.” This claim is a result of ignorance about truth and knowledge of a creator and His purpose of human design and free will and the ultimate result from sin. Imperfections and evil is choices that we humans make, and the direct consequences of our choice, regardless of the time frame when the evil and imperfections may occur. If one chooses to disobey God, the immediate results of this decision may now be in a now time frame, but could result in the consequence at a later time; a trickle affect if you will. God allows our choices to reflect our circumstances. The divine design or divine purpose is not a perfect world in which man decides what is perfect. The knowledge of God far exceeds the knowledge of man. If there is a cause, there is also an effect to that cause.
If the universe was caused, there is an effect to the cause, and to have a cause, you must first have a creation of that cause, thus having a creator with divine intentions, not necessarily of our knowledge but of a divine creator. McCloskey states, “No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.” Again, this gives rise to the free will that God gives each of us. Sure, He could have made us where we were perfect beings; loving Him as He chooses and acting as He directs, but would that make us with free will, love Him for Him, or because He said to love Him. God wants our love to be from our own hearts and by our own free choosing. “An omnipotent being cannot create a square circle… because these contradictory states of affairs are not genuine possibilities.” (Evans, & Manis, 2009, p 161) To eliminate evil, you must also eliminate good, without evil you would have no moral values. Humans operate on thought and free will, and not of a robot mentality. The burden of proof would be on McCloskey to prove that the existence of God and evil are logically contradictory. This has not been done.
Discussing free will, McCloskey asks “might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?” As a believer, I would say, yes; God could have easily designed us to always choose what is right, but this would contradict the free will. Having free will give us the option to choose what is right over what is wrong, thus allowing us to choose to accept and love Him on our own, from our own choice and not His. We are given free will for the greater good.
McCloskey claims that atheism is more comforting than theism. With this statement, McCloskey would have to know what the comfort is like for the theist. His claim is not backed by evidence of his own, but on his own interpretation of comfort. For an atheist, life would have an ultimate meaningless purpose, (Craig, 2008) which to say that life has no ultimate value. Because man ends in nothing, he is ultimately nothing. How can this prove to be comforting? If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference if you lived a so called purposeful life. How can this be comforting? To live with a belief in God and to go to the grave with an ultimate purpose in life; doesn’t this sound more comforting than to die, believing that it is the end of nothing?
In conclusion, McCloskey argues that being an atheist is more logical and practical than being a theist and that there is no basis or empirical evidence of a creator. If we would eliminate all evil, we would be eliminating all man. If there is a cause, there must be something that caused the cause. A tornado cannot go through a junk yard, creating a plane. It is not rational thinking. Evidence of a creator is proven historically, archeologically, scientifically and personal accounts. McCloskey’s claims are not proven true, but are his own interpretation of false beliefs.
References
Craig, W.L. (2008,
December 16). The Absurdity of life without god. Retrieved from
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2149706/posts
Evans, C., & Manis,
R. (2009). Philosophy of religion. IVP Academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment